Pratap Singh and Others vs Food Corporation of India

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioners, being the workers at the Sangrur Godown of the Respondent Food Corporation of India (FCI) have filed this writ petition seeking direction for re-employment of the Petitioners and also for the relief of implementation of Ishwari Prasad Committee Report, in terms of the judgment dated 30th April, 2004 of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3474/2003 titled Damodar Bhagat v. Food Corporation of India.

The counsel for the Petitioners on the last date of hearing agreed that insofar as the first relief of re-employment is concerned, this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to grant the same. It was the contention of the counsel for the Respondent FCI on the last date of hearing that the second relief claimed of implementation of Ishwari Prasad Committee Report tantamount to the Petitioners workers raising industrial dispute and which also could not be done in this jurisdiction.

The counsel for the Petitioners has today with reference to the judgment in Damodar Bhagat (supra) has contended that this Court had directed the Ishwari Prasad Committee Report to be implemented by working out of the requirement of handling labour, not by treating 365 days as the number of days when work has to be performed and to work out the number of days, the work has to be performed after deducting the off days. Further direction for employment of additional handing labour so required was also issued.

The counsel for the Petitioners states that the judgment in Damodar Bhagat has attained finality and though the Respondent FCI has implemented the same qua the Depot in Ludhiana to which the said case pertained but has not implemented the same qua the Depot at Sangrur to which the present writ petition pertains. She confines the second relief in the present case to the said extent only and contends that in view of judgment in Damodar Bhagat, there is no dispute.

The counsel for the Respondent FCI states that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction to grant the said relief also. On enquiry, as to how the said relief qua the Depot in Ludhiana was granted in the writ petition in Damodar Bhagat case, it is stated that the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was not taken in that case.

The counsel for the Petitioners on the contrary shows that the demand of the workers in Damodar Bhagat case had been refereed by the concerned Depot/Zone to the Headquarter of the Respondent FCI, admittedly at Delhi and the decision was to be taken at Delhi and it was for the said reason that the writ petition in Damodar Bhagat case, though pertaining to Ludhiana, was entertained at Delhi.

I am even otherwise of the opinion that the Head Office of the Respondent FCI being at Delhi, the Respondent FCI as a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, ought not to take such technical pleas and particularly against workmen, when the issue involved is purely legal and covered by a judgment of this Court.

The Respondent FCI in its counter affidavit has stated that the Respondent FCI is implementing the Ishwari Prasad Committee Report in accordance with the judgment in Damodar Bhagat. The Respondent FCI even otherwise under the law, in view of the judgment in Damodar Bhagat is required to implement the said Report in accordance with the said judgment.

The Petitioners urge that the Respondent FCI has however not computed the requirement for handling labour at the Sangrur Depot as per the judgment in Damodar Bhagat and if the requirement is so computed, the Respondent FCI would be required to engage additional workforce.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Respondent FCI to viz-a-viz Sangrur Depot compute the requirement for handling labour in accordance with Ishwari Prasad Committee Report and in accordance with the judgment aforesaid in Damodar Bhagat. Upon such computation, if any additional workforce is required, the same be engaged.

No order as to costs.